On April 29, 2010, at 6:45 p.m., plaintiff Caton State, 34, a periodontist, was driving on Natoma Street, in Folsom, when his vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by John Skarr. State claimed to his neck. State sued John Skarr and the believed owner of the vehicle, Douglas Skarr. State alleged that John Skarr was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that Douglas Skarr was vicariously liable for John Skarr’s . Douglas Skarr was ultimately dismissed from the case. John Skarr, who was 17 years old at the time of the accident, admitted liability for the low-speed impact., State sustained a 3-millimeter disc protrusion of the C5-6intervertebral disc. He was also thought to have facet pain from C4 through C7. State treated with radiofrequency ablation, though he claimed it was unsuccessful. He also underwent an artificial disc replacement at C5-6 3.5 years after the subject accident. State, a periodontist, claimed that he still suffers from chronic pain and that, accordingly, he has had to rescue his dental practice and change from working six days a week to 3.5 days a week. He also claimed that in addition to cutting back working at his regular practice, he had to give up income earned working as an independent contractor for other dentists. State alleged that he will have to retire early due to his chronic pain or convert to part-time hours later in his career, resulting in a significant loss of future wages. Thus, State sought recovery of $140,000 in medical costs, $550,000 in future medical costs, and in excess of $6 million for his past and future loss of income. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended State’s disc replacement surgery was a success and that State exhibited no limitations or restriction after the procedure. Approximately four months before the accident, State purchased a periodontal practice from a dentist forced to retire due to health reasons. Defense counsel noted that State admitted that he did not lose any patients in his practice and had not missed any time from work, except during his surgery. Defense counsel also contended that business records from State’s dental practice indicated that State continued to grow his income each year and that State continued to work the same number of days at the practice that the prior dentist worked. Defense counsel further contended that State gave up the independent contractor work to concentrate on his personal practice, which was reflected by the fact that State’s income increased each year he owned the practice.